Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Huth v Huth

[1915] 3 KB 32

Case summary last updated at 17/01/2020 17:12 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Huth v Huth

D sent a letter to X and Y, defaming X and Y. The butler opened and read the letter. X and Y claimed that this was publication to a 3rd party. CA held that since it is no part of a butler’s duties to open his mistresses’ letters, his doing so could not make P liable for defamation. 

Lord Reading CJ: Letters sent, albeit unsealed ones, are not opened by intermediaries in the “ordinary course of business”. This is not the same as a defamatory postcard, which does publish its contents to all who handle it. 

Bray J: Since there was not a “high degree of probability” that the letter would be opened and read before reaching X and Y, it cannot be said to have published its claims. 

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Tort Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Tort Law Notes

Tort Law Notes >>